Hello dear readers. I have decided to take a small break from posting about Independent Affiliates to post about another UUA thing that I'm interested in.....General Assembly.
Those who know me in real life know just how much I love GA. I love GA so much that I'm worried about this new "5th Principle" committee. I'll write about that in another post.
This post, however, is not about any future GAs; it is about 2008.
By sheer coincidence, my parents just returned from a cruise of the Western Caribbean. When they let me know that they were back home and to talk a little about the cruise, I asked them where the cruise started from. (I thought it was Ft. Lauderdale, but wanted to make sure)
"Ft. Lauderdale," was their reply.
"Did they check your ID?", I asked.
"We had it ready, but the lady said not to worry about it since we were with the cruise line and on one of their buses."
Once I got that confirmation, I became even more uneasy about the 2008 GA than I was before.
So I think it's time to give out the first Real Anonymous UU Genius Award to the person or persons who came up with the brilliant idea of having General Assembly at a convention center that's in the middle of a port; making race/ethnicity a bigger issue than most UUs think.
Let's examine this shall we. Having a government-issued ID is not that big a deal for most of us. The issue becomes the people who will be checking that ID. As it is in airports, so it will be at a port. I can see it now.....UU males of color(especially youth) are going to be profiled all in the name of national security and there's no protest the UUA can make because they knew this would happen going in.
I know that GA sites are chosen years in advance. However, my guess is that Ft. Lauderdale was chosen AFTER Sept. 11, 2001. If it was, why was it chosen? Or did this issue not cross the minds of whoever made this decision because, as UUism is 97% white, they would not be the target of the profiling?
So I have made my decision. I will boycott the 2008 General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale in protest of the decision to hold it in a place that is so obviously fraught with national security issues and ignored our own commitment to anti-racism and anti-oppression. I would encourage you to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm not sure I'm following this. Because of National Security, it's a foregone conclussion that Ft Lauderdale will practice racial profiling? Do you have stats to show that all port cities are hotbeds of racial profiling? I haven't seen anything about it in the news.
And then, because the organizers of the GA had not predicted the profiling (which has not yet occurred), they are deficient in the anti-R&O... and so, because of this failure (which will not occur for another eight months- if ever), they deserve to be boycotted?
I am reminded of "Minority Report"
A colleague from Florida passed along this link, which can help us decide for ourselves what we're getting into:
http://www.broward.org/port/security_partners.htm
Some of the "red flags" they'll consider potentially dangerous behavior:
- Unknown persons attempting to gain access to facilities
- Individuals lacking required identification badge
- Unknown persons loitering in an area for extended periods of time
- Unknown persons photographing facilities in and around the Port
- Roadside food vendors or individuals loitering either adjacent to or in
proximity of Port Everglades facilities
- Unknown person attempting to gain information about facilities by walking
up to personnel or their families and engaging them in conversation
- Unknown or suspicious workers trying to gain access to facilities
- Anti-American sentiment expressed by employees or vendors
Think that UUs at a GA might feel "entitled" to exercise some of these behaviors? You betcha.
Help me out here - is there a different protocol for every American town that's a "port city?" And do these special security measures occur throughout the whole city, or at a particular location within the city?
I thought GA took place usually in convention centers, so wouldn't we be at a convention center in Fort Lauderdale? And wouldn't almost everyone at a convention center be "unknown" to the local police.
Lots of people of color live in Fort Lauderdale - are they being harassed?
You put your finger on the misunderstanding, Hafidah- those red flags are for behavior ON THE COMMERCIAL DOCKS where stevadores are actually wrangling containers off ships and into the U.S.. That is not the level of security being exercised at the entrance into the McDonalds or a hotel. If some Unitarian conventioneer takes a cab to the waterfront- miles from the convention- sneaks into the docks without ID, and starts photographing handling facilities while muttering "death to America", s/he is going to be hassled regardless of race, and will receive none of my pity.
The last time I was at the Ft. Lauderdale CC was before Sept. 11, 2001 and while some things may have changed, the location of it hasn't.
The Convention Center is IN the port of Ft. Lauderdale. The concern I have about this is that the very nature of GA makes using a CC that is IN a port will create nothing but problems. Everytime a GA attendee leaves the CC to go to lunch or dinner (which we all have to do at some point during GA) or to their hotel (if I remember correctly, the closest hotel is almost a mile away from the CC), when they come back to the CC, they will have to go through Security checkpoints. Just imagine the line that's going to happen at Ware Lecture time.
I think that in an organization that keeps touting that it's trying to be anti-racism and anti-oppression, that yes, somebody should have thought of the implications of going somewhere where there will be some major national security issues. Then again, I am assuming that the decision about Ft. Lauderdale was made AFTER Sept. 11, 2001. If the decision was made before that date, it is a different story.
I am concerned that UU males of color will be harassed. They have been in many places where GA has been. And to add "national security" to that mix makes me even more concerned.
Pardon me if I am not impressed with government assurances that they will let not deny entry to anybody "not posing a threat of terrorism". What does a terrorist look like? Or what poses a threat of terrorism? Aren't those subjective matters? And far too often in American history, when it comes to subjective matters, minority males are singled out, no matter where they are or who they are.
That's why I will be boycotting GA in Ft. Lauderdale.
I hope lots of UU tourists boycott GA, maybe that way delegates can get some real work done.....
It's nice to see another member of the Anonymous club.
Let's remember something; the majority of people who attend GA are NON-delegates. That does not make them tourists. GA breaks even or makes money only when there are lots of non-delegate UUs.
Most of the business of the Association could be done in 2 Plenary sessions. And this year's GA debacle of having a Plenary session instead of Sunday morning worship just makes that more clear to me. Also, there was no reason to get rid of Repeat Programming. That made it possible for those who are non-delegates to get more information to take back to their congregations.
GA works because it has a multitude of workshops that focus on the various levels of church life. Most of those workshops, when not presented by staff, are presented by non-delegates.
So what "real work" isn't being done at GA now that would be done if non-delegates weren't at GA?
I can assure you that I feel like a tourist, even though I'm a delegate every year.
CC
ChaliceChick,
I don't think being a tourist while at GA is a bad thing.
I didn't like anonymous' implication that non-delegate UUs are only tourists and somehow get in the way of delegates doing part of their work.
I have been both a delegate and a non-delegate and while I personally prefer being a non-delegate I know people who much prefer the former.
Post a Comment